1972 (11) TMI 11 - HC - Income Tax

Addition of cost of undisclosed sale of grains - Tribunal allowed for shortage due to storage in accordance with the notification of the co-operative department. Whether a question of law arises from this decision - This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on behalf of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, praying that the Appellate Tribunal be directed to state the case and refer a question of law arising therefrom held that no question of law arises

Summary

Issues:
- Application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for direction to the Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer a question of law arising therefrom.
- Dispute regarding the addition of Rs. 45,000 to the business income of the assessee due to concealed income.
- Interpretation of whether the suppressed stock of maize, gram, and jowar represented normal shortages or manipulation of totals.
- Contention on the reliance of Government notification for permitted percentage of shortage.
- Examination of the Tribunal's decision and determination of whether a question of law arises.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax sought direction for the Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer a question of law. The case involved a partnership firm, the assessee, engaged in grain trading, which claimed shortages due to driage, handling, and storage. However, discrepancies were found in the books of account regarding the quantities sold without proper recording. The Income-tax Officer made an addition of Rs. 45,000 to the business income as concealed income, which was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.

The matter was taken to the Appellate Tribunal, where the contention revolved around whether the suppressed stock represented normal shortages or manipulation. The Tribunal considered a notification by the Government of Rajasthan on permissible percentage of losses in weight and allowed shortage at specific rates. The department challenged this decision, arguing that the Tribunal's finding lacked evidence and was unjustified. However, the Tribunal's reliance on the notification was deemed reasonable, and it reduced the percentage of shortage considering the shorter sales period of the assessee.

In the final analysis, the court rejected the department's application, stating that no question of law arose from the Tribunal's order. The court emphasized that the Tribunal's decision, based on the Government notification and proportionate adjustments, was reasonable and supported by evidence. The judgment highlighted the importance of factual findings by the Tribunal and the limited scope for interference by the High Court unless the decision is unsupported by evidence or unreasonable.